This paper argues that concerns that the feminist agenda is better served by qualitative not quantitative methodology were based on a rather narrow definition of feminism and a somewhat misleading portrayal of quantitative research. Using exemplar studies undertaken as part of the ESRC Research Priority Network on Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction (GeNet), I show how quantitative analysis can forward our understanding of the processes that underlie gender inequalities. Quantitative approaches are essential to examine the processes of selection and exclusion that reflect and create gender inequalities as manifest in changing lives and structures. Quantitative analysis of longitudinal data is used for investigating dynamic processes and different patterns of gendered resource allocation in productive and reproductive activities; whereas in-depth qualitative analysis is used to unpick the different national policy contexts for work-family balance. This can help inform how quantitative researchers (some of whom are feminists) interpret what they count.